Reddit reviews White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America
We found 32 Reddit comments about White Cargo: The Forgotten History of Britain's White Slaves in America. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
NYU Press
We're discussing present systemic oppression rooted in past systemic oppression, and also proportionally how much that past systemic oppression has contributed to the present systemic oppression.
Comparing the traffic of the Irish and of British debtors--rated around 300K tops according to the one reputable source published by an academic press--to the 12.5 million slaves of African origins--as demonstrating equivalence is downright laughable mathematically.
While conceding the point that voluntary and involuntary indentures often faced conditions exactly the same as African slaves, they are distinct from slaves in that after their terrible indenture period was ended, their holders legally had to free them and provide them land.
Additionally, the grounds on which white indentures were sent to North America--they were politically undesirable--is substantially different from the grounds on which African slaves werte sent to North America--they were seen as inherently and genetically inferior, rather than merely a political nuisance.
Fast-forward some three hundred years and ask the following questions: (1) Statistically, how do white persons of Irish descent compare to other white persons in their proportional educational attainment, income levels, and political influence? and (2) Statistically, how do black persons compare to white persons proportionally on the same measures?
The results, I venture, will be starkly different--and thus showcases the differentially systemic impact of African slavery and the admittedly terrible conditions of white indentured servitude.
I don't know about outright "denial" outside of fringe circles, but it's not uncommon to see folks engage in mental gymnastics to downplay the legacy of imperialism, chattel slavery, etc., or even attempt to turn it into a "good" thing. Think about it:
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422282600&sr=8-1&keywords=white+cargo
> Because white people didn't go through slavery.
Wrong.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
>hurr durr source is funny
now fuck off
https://www.salon.com/2000/06/15/white_slaves/
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
https://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
Just because you didn't learn about it in school or see it on TV, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Read "White Cargo" http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. You won't read about this in High School History textbooks
I don't know of a single place that has compiled all of the relevant information through history, you have to look on a smaller scale and combine all of it. I guess you could start with these:
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
http://www.amazon.com/They-Were-White-Slaves-Enslavement/dp/0929903056
But you have to go so much further back before you see just how many whites were enslaved, mainly in Europe. You also have to be specific with how you define "white" people. In America, anyone with white skin is white, and if you expand on that it's pretty obvious there have been more white slaves throughout history than blacks, there are simply more white people. But if you get more specific and only include English/British people, then probably not.
Honest Abe comes from his time as a lawyer riding the 8th court circuit in Illinois. He was known for his fairness and honesty in legal cases.
As to the whole white slavery thing, I call and continue to call bullshit. I have never seen a scholarly article discuss the enslavement of irish people to the US. The only book I have ever seen on the topic claims that 300,000 irish came to the US as slaves prior to the revolution. If that were true, those 300k irish would represent up to 10% of the population leading up to the revolution, and yet, no serious scholarly research has been done on them? It just doesn't add up. That is a HUGE segment of the population to ignore. That is more white slaves than black slaves during the time period.
Now I do concede that some Irish were probably deported to the US, but they were indentured servants or free when they got here, and being an indentured servant is nothing like being a slave.
Here is the book that I have found, that makes the 300k claim. I have not found any other book making the Irish slavery claim. http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1341351523&sr=8-4&keywords=irish+slaves Just read the description, it uses so many buzzwords it is ridiculous.
Sorry if I ranted, but the white slave claim makes me want to claw out my eyes when I see it.
you might want to give this a quick read. Also, look up how the States treated the Chinese post Civil War, Native Americans at really any point in time, Hispanics post WWII...
Did black people get the worst of it? Yes, although the Natives come very close. Were there black people who weren't slaves? Yes. Were there black slave owners? Yes
Full disclosure: I am part Irish.
Yes. Mainly from Ireland. It's not talked about often, and they're mainly refered to as "indentured servants" when talked about but... Yeah. Basically white slaves. There is a very good book about it called White Cargo.
More inconvenient information for the SJW/Marxists: http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/
White Cargo
> But then again the Irish earned their whiteness.
Exactly. Gotta earn your stars and stripes!
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
HEre's a good place to start
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/27/1265498/-The-slaves-that-time-forgot Here's another
The Irish most likely.
Edit: There's this book
It's a good read
I came here to suggest the same; I'm glad to see someone else recommend it. White Cargo is a pretty good read on the subject.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0814742963
oppressed minority is a relative term. A white man in a black ghetto is an oppressed minority. or a white in south africa. Issues such as slavery are rather funny to when you think abotu it. As an Irish American i have just as much of a right to declare myself a member of a formerly oppressed minority.
if you feel like a little light reading.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Irish-Slaves-indenture-Immigrants/dp/145630612X
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335295822&sr=1-1
For reliable information, you'll have to go to largely offline sources. Don Jordan and Michael Walsh cover a lot of ground regarding Irish (and other) slavery in their book, White Cargo.
In all, there were some 300,000 to 500,000 Irish and poor British that were sent, or in frequent cases "spirited" (aka kidnapped), to the new colonies and Caribbean islands as slaves and indentured servants. A good part of this was the method by which the English combated Irish rebels -- the Tories. As described in White Cargo:
>One way of dealing with them was to hold four people hostage against the captures of any tory committing a crime. If within twenty-eight days the crime went unsolved and the tory had not given himself up, the four would be shipped off the colonies.
Either way, the English were satisfied.
Regarding the early numbers, they provide:
> Over the next ten years, several English privateers reportedly did arrive in the Chesapeake with Africans for sale, and men and women were brought in from the Dutch territory and from the West Indies, but Virginia continued to rely on the white servant trade. By the mid-seventeenth century, Africans numbered only 300 out of a total settler population of 11,000.
...
>Although there was no abrupt surge of Africans, the racial balance in the tobacco fields was changing. In the first quarter of the seventeenth century, white outnumbered black in the Chesapeake by more than twenty to one. By the last quarter of the century, the ratio had narrowed to three to one, with 2,000 black slaves in Virginia and 6,000 white servants.
As they also describe, it was a question of economics. White slaves and indentured servants were frequently cheaper to come by, and had higher survival rates, than African blacks. In time, this changed, and more and more blacks survived both the journey from Africa as well as the labor in the fields. And thus began the shift to African slaves instead of the largely Irish whites.
With regards to the slavery vs. indentured servitude aspect, Publisher's Weekly states:
>High school American history classes present indentured servitude as a benignly paternalistic system whereby colonial immigrants spent a few years working off their passage and went on to better things. Not so, this impassioned history argues: the indentured servitude of whites was comparable in most respects to the slavery endured by blacks.
Though many cases were time-limited (at least at the start), indentured servants were every bit as much treated like those who were bound for life.
All of the pages I can find that talk about this seem to be using this book as their primary source. I havn't been able to find any detailed reviews of this one, nor much about the authors.
Anti-Irish sentiment. Irish slavery.
Keeping a culture going by participating in it is a choice. It doesn't matter where that culture came from; it matters whether it persists when there is no actual reason for it to persist. Plenty of people have abandoned that culture and done quite well for themselves. So the obvious conclusion is that if you don't act like a thug, make better choices, and stop acting like a whiny, entitled retard, you'll be just fine.
It's not genetics. I don't believe anyone is inherently more or less capable of success based on their ethnic background. It's bad choices and a lack of personal responsibility. If you can't manage those two things, don't fucking live in America. Because this is not a society that shields people from their decisions. If you fuck up, you're going to feel it.
And before you go into the whole, "rich people don't feel the consequences of their fuckups as hard" line, duh. Wealth is power. It just so happens that the people with the most wealth are the people whose cultures aren't based on being a bunch of criminal-worshiping degenerates. Racial superiority isn't a thing, but you can bet your ass cultural superiority is. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking liar.
You're not absolved of your responsibility to make sound life choices just because you don't have as many do-overs as someone else.
My bad, I forgot to list the 5% link.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/
"Anglo-Saxons, whose influx began around AD 450, account for 10 to 40 per cent of the DNA in half of modern-day Britons."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html
"Isotope analysis has begun to be employed to help answer the uncertainties regarding Anglo-Saxon migration. However, the number of studies is small. Strontium data in a 5th–7th-century cemetery in West Heslerston implied the presence of two groups: one of "local" and one of "nonlocal" origin. Although the study suggested that they could not define the limits of local variation and identify immigrants with confidence, they could give a useful account of the issues.[98] Oxygen and strontium isotope data in an early Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Wally Corner, Berinsfield in the Upper Thames Valley, Oxfordshire, found only 5.3% of the sample originating from continental Europe, supporting the hypothesis of acculturation. Furthermore, they found that there was no change in this pattern over time, except amongst some females." - Wiki
Also on white slavery in the US:
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
You could read a book on the subject and maybe stop arguing from ignorance: https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
An informative read on slavery in general:
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
They weren't as "pure" as other whites, and were ridiculed in America for quite some time - some even being used as slaves alongside african slaves. If you played the recent game Bioshock Infinite you may have noticed how the Irish were objectified alongside blacks in the depiction of Columbia.
Also see:
"Irish Americans were not always considered white."
and
http://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Edit: The marginalization of the Irish really began during the Plantation of Ulster by the English, where King James stole Irish land and gave it to wealthy brits. Also, the Potato Famine wasn't because there wasn't enough food, but because the English stole it all.
haha. Actually, i'm African-American. Why does it matter though? I'm not pushing an agenda. I'm not a trumpet here trolling, i didn't even give an opinion about slavery, just commenting that there seems to have been white slaves. It's not just Irish people either. Here's an excerpt from its page on amazon. I thought you'd want to be privy to this information since you're saying it isn't true and there is documentation that disagrees with you.
"White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain’s American colonies.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London’s streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide “breeders” for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.
This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface."
https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
The SPLC is an anti white hate organization that specializes in promoting non white victimhood. Read this book. https://www.amazon.com/White-Cargo-Forgotten-History-Britains/dp/0814742963
Its not a myth. If you compared the documented numbers of irish slaves brought here to african slaves. There is less than a 30,000 head difference in people brought here against their will.
As for the "land" argument.
Again you are ignoring almost totally that all that land was grabbed up before most of the immigration took place at the turn of the century.
Immigrants came here to new york and developed their own communities. They had no land. No money. but they did have brutal discrimination.
Vietnamese people came here after saigon fell. They had nothing. Many of them literally coming her from a helicopter airlift. That was only about 40 years ago and vietnamese americans now own nearly 93% of nail salons.
They had no "land" to generate wealth when they got here.
The black problem is not racism and a nasty history of slavery. The people alive today never met a slave. and neither have their parents. Its a mix of low iq , high testosterone , and hyperdysgenic welfare dependency.
Yes, white Irish were involved in the slave trade as much so as black Africans.
A good book on the subject is White Cargo - by Don Jordan. Irish slave trade started when James II in 1625 made it so for political prisoners to be traded. The majority of early slaves to the New World actually were white. In part because the Irish were Catholic, which in some eyes tainted them. They were cheaper than African slaves, and Don suggests even the Africans were treated better.
Irish people were actually the first slaves in america, before black people.
The reason why it's racist for an irish person to do that though is because attitudes changed from irish people being the british people's slave to black people being white people's slave. The US was extremely against irish people even as late as the 1920s but attitudes changed! an irish person was president at a time when Obama's father couldn't even sit in the same restaurant as a white person. The fact is there is still very strong racial biases against black people from people and institutions in america